So I'd like to review the current hierarchy of document and collections
types in the RDF ontology we're working on. Am cross-posting to the
Zotero and OOo bib dev lists. Please send suggestions ASAP (like end of
today).
Note: as I mentioned before, this is really quite hard, as I don't
really think there can be an ontologically pure modeling here, and we
have to be able to deal with often awkward legacy data.
I do think this list needs work though. We've just been focusing on
other details lately.
Also, I think we probably need a literal property that allows people to
give a little more information when the type itself can't convey it.
So this is the hierarchy, with my comments:
Collection
InternetSite
Series
Periodical
Journal
Magazine # we might drop this, or add Newspaper
CourtReporter
# How to deal with multi-volume books?
# I guess could just use generic Collection?
Document
InternetDocument # I'm convinced we need this as a full type
Article
LegalCase # need input from lawyers here; not happy with this
Brief
Decision
Manuscript # I suggest dropping
Book # do we need a separate class for edited books?
Proceeding
Booklet # I HATE this vestige from BibTeX; let's cut it
Manual
Legislation # need help here too
Patent
Report
TechnicalReport # is this important?
Thesis
Dissertation
Transcript
Interview
Note # maybe it shouldn't be a subclass of Document?
Law # if we keep, should be subclass of Legislation
So obvious stuff we're missing beyond comments above?
No way to indicate letters, memos, phone conversations, etc. Transcript
might be problematic.
The Zotero guys wanted to treat communication as a separate class. E.g.
Communication
EMail
Letter
Memo
etc.
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
